http://www.bloomberg.com/avp/avp.htm?clipSRC=mms://media2.bloomberg.com/cache/vm_h9lUtg.HM.asf

– I have to say that between Walt and Mearsheimer, Mearsheimer is the more forceful and formidable of the two. If Phil is correct that Walt is a Leftist, that would explain his (at times) hand-wringing and apologetic answers to Schneider's nasty line of questioning, which is exactly the wrong way to confront a Judeofascist.

Don't get me wrong — Walt has more balls than the average 25 Left-liberals combined (male or female) but he shouldn't be so worried about giving offense to a Judeofascist. Again, if he is a Leftist, his pulling punches is probably the result of politically correct conditioning to which all Leftists have been subjected and to which they have subjected themselves. This hamstrings and dibilitates them in the fight against Judeofascists, who are ruthless and can smell weakness, and will repeatedly try to bait opponents into saying something politically incorrect to A)test whether they have any balls; and B)play the victim "oh, you're just an anti-Semite" card if they rise to the bait.

Watch how Shneider's eyes seem to grow wide (he's nearly licking his chops) when Walt starts stammering and insisting "we're not saying…"

On the other hand, the way Mearsheimer handled the interview was much more effective, which was to pull no punches, make no apologies, and answer Schneiders repeated inturruptions and rude line of iquiry patiently and firmly, the way you might address a difficult, immature teenager who thinks he is smarter than every adult in the room. Schneider slowly seems to whither the longer this goes on.

Schneider's immaturity and adolescent-like line of questioning raises an important point about the Judeofascists: They are morally and emotionally stunted, and they don't have a refined understanding of right and wrong; they're all about knee-jerk "survival," even thought it's their own atrocious behavior that puts them in constant jeopardy.

One does not get anywhere with spoiled, self-indulgent teenagers by pandering to their wickedness. Walt seems to understand that.

Typical of politically correct left-liberals, they over-indulge the Judeofascists and then can't understand why they interpret this as a license to kill. (And yes, mentally ill Christian Zionists indulge the Judeofascists too, but this is because they know that left unrestrained, the Judeofascists will hasten us down the road toward Armageddon.)

It would all be amusing if the Judeofascists weren't so deadly, but giving them any sort of license is like handing a loaded gun to a teenager in the midst of an emotional meltdown.

Most teenagers can ultimately be reasoned with once they have matured a bit and gained some perspective. But some have to be thrown out of the house before they will grow up. I'm afraid the Judeofascists fall into the latter camp. Take away their guns and throw them out of the house. (In other words, cut off all US aid to Israel). If the crazed Judeofascists want money, let the crazed diaspora Judeofascists provide it. That will put a quick end to their indulgent rampage.

Didn't you do so to preserve his credibility? That he was in fact a "realist" and not in fact an ideologue.

Phil,
People react to your choice of subjects to write about. You used to write about a much more varied, and less partisan, set of subjects.

Aren't there other issues that you are similarly interested in? These one is off the ground already.

The Jewish presence in Palestine was small. Starting around 1880, a lasting immigration movement broke the balance.

Revolutions fail if they slip into a terror.

The Israeli revolution has not failed because really decent people took the rein.

Sadly the Palestinian reply was terrible, on the level of the native Americans, and the good people of Palestine failed because the leadership was immoral, unfair, and the decent voices were shouted down.

Even WM will slip into oblivion, if the Palestinian people can not build a morally respectable stand. Hamas is the latest blunder.

The choice can not be Islamic or Socialist, it has to be enlightened.

Just like the Hungarians, who achieved respectability when Deak 1803-1876 reined in on the bad Hungarians.

He was the Hungarian Gandhi, just a little better than Gandhi.

We need the Palestinian Deak not today, yesterday.

His name will not be Arafat, Mufti.

Oi! Oi! Oi!
(Little British humor thrown in there)

One thing for sure, given the partisan nature, you would have all the republicans howling of democratic playing wild and loose with hegemonic power.

announcement follows:

Dear members of the St. Thomas community,

One of the strengths of a university is the opportunity that it provides to speak freely and to be open to other points of view on a wide variety of issues. And, I might add, to change our minds.

Therefore, I feel both humbled and proud to extend an invitation to Archbishop Desmond Tutu to speak at the University of St. Thomas.

I have wrestled with what is the right thing to do in this situation, and I have concluded that I made the wrong decision earlier this year not to invite the archbishop. Although well-intentioned, I did not have all of the facts and points of view, but now I do.

PeaceJam International may well choose to keep the alternative arrangements that it has made for its April 2008 conference, but I want the organization and Archbishop Tutu to know that we would be honored to hold the conference at St. Thomas.

In any event, St. Thomas will extend an invitation to Archbishop Tutu to participate in a forum to foster constructive dialogue on the issues that have been raised. I hope he accepts my invitation. The Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas has agreed to serve as a co-sponsor of the forum, and I expect other organizations also to join as co-sponsors.

Details about issues to be addressed will be determined later, but I would look forward to a candid discussion about how a civil and democratic society can pursue reasoned debate on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and other emotionally charged issues.

I also want to encourage a thoughtful examination of St. Thomas’ policies regarding controversial speech and controversial speakers. In the past, we have been criticized externally and internally when we have invited controversial speakers to campus – as well as when we have not. Rather than just move from controversy to controversy, might there be a positive role that this university could play in fostering thoughtful conversation around difficult and highly charged issues? We also might explore how to more clearly express in our policies and practices our commitment to civility when discussing such issues.

I have asked Dr. Nancy Zingale, professor of political science and my former executive adviser, to oversee the planning for the forum. If you have suggestions regarding either the topic or other participants, please contact her at nhzingale@stthomas.edu.

I sincerely hope Archbishop Tutu will accept our invitation. I continue to have nothing but the utmost respect for his witness of faith, for his humanitarian accomplishments and especially for his leadership in helping to end apartheid in South Africa.

Sincerely,

Father Dennis Dease
President

You are not a "highly-experienced journalist." You are an obsessive hack, incredibly partisan, who is both a boring writer and a muddled thinker. The Observer became a better paper the day you left.

You're self-pity is incredible.

Go peddle your conspiracy theories in Europe. It's fertile ground for Jew-hatred.

You are not a "highly-experienced journalist." You are an obsessive hack, incredibly partisan, who is both a boring writer and a muddled thinker. The Observer became a better paper the day you left.

You're self-pity is incredible.

Go peddle your conspiracy theories in Europe. It's fertile ground for Jew-hatred.